Blog Categories
Subscribe to Newsletter
Join our subscribers list to get the latest Tax Updates and Opportunities.
Vodafone Luxembourg 5 S.A.R.L. vs Income Tax Department, Circle International Tax 3(1)(1), Delhi & Anr. (2022) – Reassessment Notice Quashed Due to Contradictory Reasons under Sections 147, 148, 143(2), 142(1) & 151 of Income Tax Act
Facts of the
CaseThe petitioner, Vodafone Luxembourg 5 S.A.R.L.,
filed a writ petition challenging:
Reassessment notice under Section 148 dated 30 March 2021
Notices under Sections 143(2) and 142(1) read with Sect...
PR. Commissioner of Income Tax vs. M/s Shri Rathi Steel Ltd. (2022) – No Addition u/s 153A Without Incriminating Material | Delhi High Court
Facts of the CaseThe Revenue filed an appeal under Section 260A of the Income
Tax Act challenging the ITAT order for AY 2009–10. The Assessing Officer had
made an addition of ₹6 crore under Section 68 on account of...
SAIF II & SAIF III Mauritius Company Ltd. vs Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle Int Tax 3(1)(2) Delhi & Anr. – Delhi High Court Upholds Reopening Under Section 148 on ‘Reason to Believe’ Standard (2022:DHC:1112-DB)
Facts of the
CaseThe petitioners, SAIF II Mauritius Company Limited
and SAIF III Mauritius Company Limited, filed writ petitions challenging
notices dated 30th March 2021 issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act...
M/s Toshiba Corporation vs Commissioner of Income Tax (Intl. Tax) – Delhi High Court on Stay of Tax Demand & 20% Pre-deposit Rule [Sections 201(1), 201(1A), 220(6), 156 Income Tax Act]
Facts of the
CaseThe petitioner, M/s Toshiba Corporation, filed a
writ petition challenging multiple orders directing it to deposit 20% of the
outstanding tax demand. The dispute arose from an order dated 12 November
...
Aditi Infrabuild and Services Limited vs Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle 1(2) & Anr. (2022) – Refund of Excess Tax Recovery Beyond 20% Disputed Demand under Section 220(6) & Section 245 of Income Tax Act
Facts of the Case
The
petitioner sought refund of ₹1,83,91,108/-, which was recovered in
excess of 20% of disputed tax demand for AY 2016-17.
The
excess recovery was made by adjusting refunds of ...
Tata Teleservices Limited vs Commissioner of Income Tax, International Taxation-3 & Anr (2022:DHC:1044-DB) – Stay on Tax Demand Not Mandatory at 20% Under Section 201(1)/201(1A) Income Tax Act
Facts of the
CaseThe Petitioner, Tata Teleservices Limited, filed a
writ petition challenging orders dated 28 February 2022 and 14 March 2022,
whereby its stay application was disposed of by the tax authorities.The di...
QUALCOMM INCORPORATED vs DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (International Tax Circle 3(1)(1), Delhi) & Ors. | Delhi High Court | Refund of TDS Credit & Interest | AY 2009-13
Facts of the CaseThe Petitioner, Qualcomm Incorporated, filed multiple writ
petitions seeking directions against the Income Tax Department for failure to
process income tax returns correctly and grant refunds along wit...
QUALCOMM INCORPORATED vs DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (INTERNATIONAL TAX), DELHI & ORS. (2022:DHC:344-DB) (Delhi High Court | W.P.(C) 1666/2022 & Connected Matters | Decided on 28 January 2022)
Facts of the CaseThe Petitioner, Qualcomm Incorporated, filed multiple writ
petitions seeking directions against the Income Tax Department for failure to
process income tax returns, grant correct computation, and issue...
Updesh Kapur vs Principal Chief Commissioner of Income Tax & Anr. – Condonation of Delay in Filing ITR and Scope of Section 119(2)(b) of Income Tax Act
Facts of the CaseThe Petitioner, an NRI residing in the UK, received
compensation on account of the accidental death of his wife during the
Financial Year 2017–18. The compensation included interest, on which TDS was...
Dr. Priya Narula vs Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax Circle International Taxation 2(2)(2) & Ors. (2022:DHC:441-DB) – Refund of Excess Tax Recovery Beyond 20% Under Section 220(6) of Income Tax Act
Facts of the CaseThe petitioner, Dr. Priya Narula, filed a writ petition
seeking refund of ₹2,87,520/- which had been recovered by the Income Tax
Department in excess of 20% of the disputed tax demand for Assessment ...